Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:People are sneaking in votes without commenting, come on, at least say what you voted.

Oh, I voted yes. It's just happened too much. Could be coincidence, but I don't think so. It's doesn't always happen either. When your eyes lock it's like a current of some sort jolt even, which is probably more a "what the... err break eye contact."

I can't explain it, but I do believe there is something going.

I voted yes.

I`ve felt it, it`s spooky.

And...... I have, once, in my life, looked into someones eyes and they absolutely knew my soul.


(And I just know that Rick is gonna think I`m a fruitcake too, now)

I bet you feel eyes of you coming from your closet at night, right?

Yes!

And I wish Rick would settle down, he keeps waking me up.

Storyteller wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:People are sneaking in votes without commenting, come on, at least say what you voted.

Oh, I voted yes. It's just happened too much. Could be coincidence, but I don't think so. It's doesn't always happen either. When your eyes lock it's like a current of some sort jolt even, which is probably more a "what the... err break eye contact."

I can't explain it, but I do believe there is something going.

I voted yes.

I`ve felt it, it`s spooky.

And...... I have, once, in my life, looked into someones eyes and they absolutely knew my soul.


(And I just know that Rick is gonna think I`m a fruitcake too, now)

I bet you feel eyes of you coming from your closet at night, right?

Yes!


And I wish Rick would settle down, he keeps waking me up.

Go play with your cat.

Nicki wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:People are sneaking in votes without commenting, come on, at least say what you voted.

Oh, I voted yes. It's just happened too much. Could be coincidence, but I don't think so. It's doesn't always happen either. When your eyes lock it's like a current of some sort jolt even, which is probably more a "what the... err break eye contact."

I can't explain it, but I do believe there is something going.

It's just not logical to me Are you suggesting some spiritual thing going on? Because nothing comes out of your eyes when you're looking at something to affect what you're looking at.

What is spiritual? (serious question)

I believe something is going on, that I may not necessarily call spiritual. Rather a part of our psyche, our consciousness, a fabric with no Materialistic explanation really. For example, an atom or rocks don't think. Right? So why should a universe of "material stuff" just rise up and start possessing consciousness in its parts? And if such is part of the natural order, then should it be called "spiritual"? That's why I ask what is spiritual, but it's more a side question.

Here is an interesting paper relevant to this thread, one of the reasons I started it:
The Sense of Being Stared At: Is It Real or Illusory (Part 1)

Kurieuo wrote:

Nicki wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:People are sneaking in votes without commenting, come on, at least say what you voted.

Oh, I voted yes. It's just happened too much. Could be coincidence, but I don't think so. It's doesn't always happen either. When your eyes lock it's like a current of some sort jolt even, which is probably more a "what the... err break eye contact."

I can't explain it, but I do believe there is something going.

It's just not logical to me Are you suggesting some spiritual thing going on? Because nothing comes out of your eyes when you're looking at something to affect what you're looking at.

What is spiritual? (serious question)

I believe something is going on, that I may not necessarily call spiritual. Rather a part of our psyche, our consciousness, a fabric with no Materialistic explanation really. For example, an atom or rocks don't think. Right? So why should a universe of "material stuff" just rise up and start possessing consciousness in its parts? And if such is part of the natural order, then should it be called "spiritual"? That's why I ask what is spiritual, but it's more a side question.

Hmm, maybe. I might have to think more about that.

Here is an interesting paper relevant to this thread, one of the reasons I started it:
The Sense of Being Stared At: Is It Real or Illusory (Part 1)

I'd never have thought it was being taken that seriously! Okay, maybe it deserves to be taken seriously, but I was surprised. I guess my only experience has been hearing someone behind me, turning and finding they were looking, or turning around for some other reason and finding someone was looking at me, but not thinking I'd sensed them looking. I imagine there could have been a lot of times someone was looking at me and I never knew, but that's what the experiments were trying to find out, I suppose.

Nicki wrote:I guess my only experience has been hearing someone behind me, turning and finding they were looking, or turning around for some other reason and finding someone was looking at me, but not thinking I'd sensed them looking. I imagine there could have been a lot of times someone was looking at me and I never knew, but that's what the experiments were trying to find out, I suppose.

Aren't we quite the vain one? No seriously, your imagination is correct; I was looking at you a lot of times! As soon as I noticed you were about to run I'd just always starting whistling and pretend to look elsewhere.

Kurieuo wrote:

Nicki wrote:I guess my only experience has been hearing someone behind me, turning and finding they were looking, or turning around for some other reason and finding someone was looking at me, but not thinking I'd sensed them looking. I imagine there could have been a lot of times someone was looking at me and I never knew, but that's what the experiments were trying to find out, I suppose.

Aren't we quite the vain one? No seriously, your imagination is correct; I was looking at you a lot of times! As soon as I noticed you were about to run I'd just always starting whistling and pretend to look elsewhere.

That's weird how some posts are getting cut off - that's come up properly here.

Okay, now it's come up properly in the original as well. I'd noticed before that some posts were getting cut off abruptly.

I'd like to vote, but no option says, "I know of no controlled, double-blind, randomized, scientific study has shown any statistically significant evidence that anyone can sense when other people are looking at them. And people I know, who do claim the ability exists, invariably demonstrate a lack of understanding of probability and statistics, confirmation/selection bias, and numerous other investigative methodologies."

Will all of that fit on a vote button?

Morny wrote:I'd like to vote, but no option says, "I know of no controlled, double-blind, randomized, scientific study has shown any statistically significant evidence that anyone can sense when other people are looking at them. And people I know, who do claim the ability exists, invariably demonstrate a lack of understanding of probability and statistics, confirmation/selection bias, and numerous other investigative methodologies."

Will all of that fit on a vote button?

I added the option, but now all votes are lost!

Oh well. Anything for you Morny. Just remember what I do for you next time we debate.

Morny wrote:I'd like to vote, but no option says, "I know of no controlled, double-blind, randomized, scientific study has shown any statistically significant evidence that anyone can sense when other people are looking at them. And people I know, who do claim the ability exists, invariably demonstrate a lack of understanding of probability and statistics, confirmation/selection bias, and numerous other investigative methodologies."

Will all of that fit on a vote button?

Doesn't that kind of equate to 'I don't believe so' or 'it's not possible'?

Kurieuo wrote:

Nicki wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:People are sneaking in votes without commenting, come on, at least say what you voted.

Oh, I voted yes. It's just happened too much. Could be coincidence, but I don't think so. It's doesn't always happen either. When your eyes lock it's like a current of some sort jolt even, which is probably more a "what the... err break eye contact."

I can't explain it, but I do believe there is something going.

It's just not logical to me Are you suggesting some spiritual thing going on? Because nothing comes out of your eyes when you're looking at something to affect what you're looking at.

What is spiritual? (serious question)

I believe something is going on, that I may not necessarily call spiritual. Rather a part of our psyche, our consciousness, a fabric with no Materialistic explanation really. For example, an atom or rocks don't think. Right? So why should a universe of "material stuff" just rise up and start possessing consciousness in its parts? And if such is part of the natural order, then should it be called "spiritual"? That's why I ask what is spiritual, but it's more a side question.

I guess it (the feeling people looking thing) is similar to claiming to be psychic to me. It doesn't seem to be within human ability so what other power would you be using to do it?

Nicki, I reckon if I was in the same room as you that I could get you to turn around without you knowing!

You know, years ago at uni in lecture theatre, sometimes you get bored.
So you scan the room for good looking chicks.
How many times did they turn around? Most of the time. I'd look away before eye contact.
But then, sometimes you look back at them to see them looking directly at you.
Like how did they now? Did they know? Am I just so good looking that I caught them admiring my beauty back?

Anyone who stalks another... err I mean, surely others have had this same experience.
Nonetheless, I updated my answer to it's possible. I'm a weak yes. It really doesn't phase me either way though.

We simply do not know the limits of the natural world so why place limitation?
Nothing wrong with leaving it as a real possibility.

Kurieuo wrote: I added the option, but now all votes are lost!

Sorry about that. I know that when I logged, in 7 votes were for "Yes", and 2 votes for either "No" or "It's possible".

Nicki wrote: Doesn't that kind of equate to 'I don't believe so' or 'it's not possible'?

I'm making a fine but important distinction. Extrasensory perception is an extraordinary claim. I would never reject such a claim out-of-hand, but just saying "I don't believe so" doesn't come close to capturing my level of skepticism.

In any event, why just tell each other your campfire anecdotes? Finding strong evidence pro or con is surprisingly easy, if you ask the right questions and control for the right variables.

Kurieuo wrote: We simply do not know the limits of the natural world so why place limitation?
Nothing wrong with leaving it as a real possibility.

A lot is wrong with leaving unresolved pseudo-science as a "real possibility". Quack medicine, fortune-tellers, and innumerable other nonsense bilk billions every year from trusting gullible people, not to mention physical harm that can come to those people.

And in the vast majority of cases, simple but well-designed experiments can expose the quackery.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: I added the option, but now all votes are lost!

Sorry about that. I know that when I logged, in 7 votes were for "Yes", and 2 votes for either "No" or "It's possible".

Nicki wrote: Doesn't that kind of equate to 'I don't believe so' or 'it's not possible'?

I'm making a fine but important distinction. Extrasensory perception is an extraordinary claim. I would never reject such a claim out-of-hand, but just saying "I don't believe so" doesn't come close to capturing my level of skepticism.

In any event, why just tell each other your campfire anecdotes? Finding strong evidence pro or con is surprisingly easy, if you ask the right questions and control for the right variables.

Kurieuo wrote: We simply do not know the limits of the natural world so why place limitation?
Nothing wrong with leaving it as a real possibility.

A lot is wrong with leaving unresolved pseudo-science as a "real possibility". Quack medicine, fortune-tellers, and innumerable other nonsense bilk billions every year from trusting gullible people, not to mention physical harm that can come to those people.

And in the vast majority of cases, simple but well-designed experiments can expose the quackery.

Morny,

You nailed it!

ESP-extra sensory perception. That's what I was thinking, but I forgot the term.

I'm skeptical myself.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: I added the option, but now all votes are lost!

Sorry about that. I know that when I logged, in 7 votes were for "Yes", and 2 votes for either "No" or "It's possible".

Nicki wrote: Doesn't that kind of equate to 'I don't believe so' or 'it's not possible'?

I'm making a fine but important distinction. Extrasensory perception is an extraordinary claim. I would never reject such a claim out-of-hand, but just saying "I don't believe so" doesn't come close to capturing my level of skepticism.

In any event, why just tell each other your campfire anecdotes? Finding strong evidence pro or con is surprisingly easy, if you ask the right questions and control for the right variables.

Kurieuo wrote: We simply do not know the limits of the natural world so why place limitation?
Nothing wrong with leaving it as a real possibility.

A lot is wrong with leaving unresolved pseudo-science as a "real possibility". Quack medicine, fortune-tellers, and innumerable other nonsense bilk billions every year from trusting gullible people, not to mention physical harm that can come to those people.

And in the vast majority of cases, simple but well-designed experiments can expose the quackery.

Ok, you've got a point. I hate charlatans too. They give Christianity a real bad name and taste.

But, then, that shouldn't be a reason to deny something could be true. Leave it on the table as a real possibility to work out ways to test it in an as scientific manner as possible. I praise those who do attempt to test for it rather than hold them in contempt. And, you know what kind of switched me from a "Yes" to "It's possible"? That paper I linked to. Kind of left me a bit unimpressed by what was presented data-wise, and the guy is in favour of such.

BUT, you know I swear I have this gift. Not with guys, just women. They must be more sensitive to my manly power of suggestion. It just happened too often they turns around. So you know, I'm writing this book on how to use the power of suggestion to get the woman you want. I got mine. It'll only cost $1000.

Kurieuo wrote:
BUT, you know I swear I have this gift. Not with guys, just women. They must be more sensitive to my manly power of suggestion. It just happened too often they turns around. So you know, I'm writing this book on how to use the power of suggestion to get the woman you want. I got mine. It'll only cost $1000.

You can call it a gift, but women just call it creepy.